On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 12/18/2012 02:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: >> Argh. But why? Wouldn't that only apply to cases where the lock was >> sometimes locked by one library and sometimes locked by a different >> one? > > Or did you really mean > > "... only apply to cases where the memory protected by the lock > was visible to more than one library." > > Yes, if libgo is attempting atomic accesses to its own data structures, > which themselves are not exported from libgo, then a copy of libatomic > ought to work. > > It would probably be better for the shared libgo to depend on the > shared libatomic though. That's simply more pedantically correct.
But according to Matthias's comment upthread, it would require addressing some issue in libtool in order to get multilib working correctly. I'm not going to try to solve this today, but if somebody else wants to that would be great. Ian
